Skip to main content

About your Search

20121001
20121009
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
about emotional, financial, social, spiritual and environments, occupational and intellectual as well as physical aspects of ourselves. we call this the eighth dimension model of wellness. this is how we conceptualize wellness. we care about physical wellness because people are physically sick and many are dying 25 years before the general population. we care about intellectual wellness because we need healthy minds and healthy bodies in the knowledge to reclaim and manage our lives in recovery. we care about social wellness because the conditions bring about social isolation, leading people further from their healthy recovery. we care about spiritual wellness because disease, all these diseases, robs us of our sense of meaning, purpose and spiritual connectedness. we care about mental and emotional wellness week as people need clear, wide lines in order to live productive lives and pursue recovery. we care about environmental wellness because it's impossible for people to feel better or well in places or spaces where there is overcrowding, stress, pollution and other toxins in both p
compromise with the enemy. it is not going to happen. it is a terrible environment for the big deal that needs to get done. so acknowledge the reality. let's do the deal in 2013 but let's not cause a recession. basically just extend current policy to the extent policy and hope we get 2013 intact. that is my goal. >> doug, let me throw out a theory to get your reaction. the theory is this. that as long as the discussion about tax reform is an ongoing argument about the bush tax cuts -- >> i'm so tired of the bush tax cuts i can barely stand it. >> i think most people would agree. >> they have been talked about for 10 years? can we talk about something else? >> that is exactly the point. as long as you have extended the bush tax cuts, as donald said, only half of this is about the bush tax cuts. >> right. >> but in the public discussion it is the bush tax cuts. so as long as you extend them, can you get out of that debate? conversely if you let them all go. >>, does that change the framing of this we're no longer talking about the bush tax cuts, we're just talking about the tax code a
attention from getting with its own internal problems to try to confront a more hostile external environment. so continuing to engage, having confining areas of cooperation in areas of energy, the development, for instance, mess nuclear simple energy program under way. we are already cooperate with the chinese. find these areas, keep our markets open, but don't create a more hostile external environment that is absolutely essential. very important we keep the balance. there's a fine line between balance and provocation to we want to stay well on the side of balance of constructive environment spent dr. kissinger, i was surprised to hear you say that the comments made by both candidates used the term extreme deplorable leverage about china. i know you endorsed mitt romney. have you had that conversation with him? have you said i find your conversation really deplorable? ass. >> i see the advertisements of the two candidates every day are competing with each other on how to deal with the cheating things with china, and both of you cheat as applied to china. >> and trade. >> and trade. and it m
and education. and also making environment where it's easy enough for businesses to hire people and employ people and kind of stay out of everybody's way. >> host: how is it doing on those? >> caller: i don't think it's doing really well when the minimum wage is sitting at $10 an hour in some states. it's not there yet but it's getting very quick. and that isn't enough to employ people some people like myself, a small businessman, it's hard for me to employ more people when i'm having to pay so much for everything. the price of everything is going up, the price of fuel, the price of electricity, the price of food, the price of everything is going up right now. so i don't think the government is doing a good job. >> host: thanks in washington. "the wall street journal" this morning another comparison between the two candidates is and so much on the role of government, the definition of patriotism. president barack obama says he wants the new economic patriotism that mitt romney calls the presidential campaign a battle for the soul of america. the candidates are not only racing to win an ele
own internal problems to try to confront a more hostile external environment. continuing to in gauge, finding areas of cooperation and areas like energy keep our markets open the don't create a more hostile external environment. important we keep balance in the region. there is a fine line between balance and provocation that we want to stay on the side of balance and a constructive environment. >> dr. kissinger. i was surprised to hear you say comments by both candidates. the term extremely deplorable language about china. you have endorsed mitt romney. have you had that conversation with him? have you said i find your comments extremely deplorable? >> i have seen the appetite of two candidates competing with each other on how to deal with a strategy. both have achieved as applied to china. >> and trade. >> and it may be in china -- i am positive of the fact that appealing to china had taken part of the view on china policy that is not a secret. doesn't affect my basic intuition. >> mitt romney has talked about labeling china a currency manipulator. would that be productive? >> mayb
. so i'm not going to revise history to pretend that. i grew up in a religious environment and i am proud of it. i was into the priest. i'm proud of that. i would probably enormously angry right now. so i am grateful for my faith and on and on apologetic about it. >> this is pretty remarkable we started talking a little bit about how it has changed over time. we could have also added to the 19th amendment and women becoming a part of this part of the democratic inclusion. [laughter] but most of the amendments have made it more perfect. they got rid of it. >> ausley understand. >> it is pretty extraordinary. the constitution frees up every american to be eligible for public office, and there is no religious test and that wasn't the prominent feature of the state constitutions. a lot of them actually had religious tests. >> you have the establishment in religion. so, on a understand that but i simply say that the country moved on. i grew up at a time people were respectful of religion and religious people. on grew up when the church was open all the time and nobody broke and and nobod
see the problems of climate change, the environment, immigration that everyone is saying, what is that guy smoking? i see some potential for common ground. >> they think it is just as much to do with curry each because what you're talking about is people are afraid across the party line to go on a direction and because the voters are going to be upset and therefore they may not get reelected. what looks to remain objective and you go to office to get reelected, you're vulnerable. you cannot make a move anymore. i mean, we talk about the courage, you talk about senator mccain who was in vietnam and he was going through unbelievable torture. he risked his life going over there. every time coming in now, one of our brave men and women before iraq or afghanistan, they risk their life. they could risk their life for our country. why would the politicians be a little their office for mac in the right decision? [applause] that's where the problem lies because the president in his speeches to other changes to do it. and that, every police officer, every firefighter, every single family
a good thing going for 70 years in that part of the world. it's in that environment in which these tremendous economic transformations of one asian state after another can take place. we welcome that. we think that's a good thing. we want to keep going with that. that's what it's all about. so, you know, on both of those questions, stanley, all i can say is, watch. >> okay. one more question. how about in the back there, the rand hazed. -- hand raised. i'm trying to be equal opportunity per section to have audience here. >> thank you. i'm tom with the american-asian society and the affairs council. you talk about the need for peaceful resolution of disputes. i wonder if you could elaborate a bit about what stan roth referred to in the south china and east china seas where china's assertiveness is causing so much concern? >> sure. well, we see that, and i think we have a very principled position on all of this. you know, first of all, people say we don't take sides in these disputes, but that's not true. we actually do take a side. we take a side for freedom of navigation and
's an understatement. but you go up and in environment, at least i was fortunately enough to where we believe that it was perfectible. you know, it's very, i think, pretty much acceptable or maybe somewhat today to be critical or almost invariably critical of the country and pointing out what is wrong. there are obviously things wrong. there were obviously things wrong when i grew up in georgia, and that was pointed out. but it was always this unrelying -- underlying bailiff belief we were entitled -- it was the way we grew up. the nones who were immigrants who would explain it to us we were entitled as citizens of the country to be full participates. there was never any doubt that we were inherently equal. it said so in the decoration of independents. there were times later on -- make remarks reciting the not so pleasant remarks and reciting the pledge of allee again or say things i think were -- not be cell phones. [laughter] people can youtube and you it's around forever. i was upset about thing. but i grew up in an environment with people around me who believed that this country could be
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9